Dimplo Scholia: - Vox Controli - comments

[DeepO]

I agree to that: no lies. But would not telling be considered a lie? As I mentioned above, I'm fairly possitive that they need some kind of food bonus, or they couldn't grow and produce the way they have been doing, not on plains, desert and mountains. I see no reason why we should tell them everything... but no lies.

DeepO

[alva]

I thought we agreed not to tell outright lies.

We aren't !

Including site #7 there is room for 3 full (21tiles) cities.
We don't have to share on how we are going to use them, do we?

EDIT: should have added the quote the first time around

[DeepO]

Nope... but just telling them that there is no way out from that side is maybe enough, and we don't need to tell them anything regarding size.

DeepO

[nbarclay]

If we go back and say, "hey something came up, so we settled another city down there," when we'd planned to settle the city all along, we're lying.

[alva]

If we go back and say, "hey something came up, so we settled another city down there," when we'd planned to settle the city all along, we're lying.

Then we should tell them, that are planning on taking them out someday too, no matter what happens.

If we say there is room for 3 cities, then in my opinion we are not lying. In game terms, there IS only room for that many cities.
We decided to put in one or two more*, which if this game would last until 2050 could hamper us later in the game.
We just elected to go for early power on the premise that we will never see the modern ages, hence the close city spacing.

* Where it was debated that one would eventually be abandoned

[nbarclay]

Proposed response to Vox:

Greetings BetaHound and Vox Controli,

I regret to inform you that I have contracted a disease known as "real life," and that my physicians will not permit me to put the time into this message and its related issues that I would really like to. I hope you can understand my situation.

I fear that if you want us to reach a consensus to commit to a permanent peace within the time available for this trade deal, you want the impossible. Your earlier actions have stirred up more than a little mistrust, resentment, and even anger among some of our leaders (indeed, probably among all of us to varying degrees), and those wounds will require a combination of time and positive experiences between our peoples before they can fully heal.

That said, however, we of Gathering Storm can guarantee you of two things. First, it is our great hope to avoid even the hint of warfare for a long time to come. We have far too much to do settling cities and building infrastructure to want to waste our resources fighting.

And second, our interest in obtaining Iron Working so early is purely defensive in nature. Were it not for defensive concerns, especially concerns about the power of your immortals, our focus would be entirely on peaceful lines of research. But you do have immortals (or at least the basic technology needed to build them), and in light of the recent tensions, we regard the ability to build swordsmen as an important counterweight.

(If you would feel more comfortable with some specific duration attached to our promise of peace, that could be arranged as long as the duration is reasonable and there are reasonable protections for each side's legitimate interests. But durations imply endings, and I much prefer to view this as merely a beginning.)

We should also point out that contrary to what some among you seem to think, your rejection of our proposal would make little difference in when we learn how to work iron. It is ultimately the peaceful technology, not the military one, that you would cause a major delay to if you reject this proposal. And in the process, you would pass over both a valuable economic opportunity and an opportunity to replace the recent tensions with a clear positive element in our relationship.

In regard to your request that we withdraw our warriors, we would like to propose a different idea. We have long valued the assurances Grog can provide that no Vox Controli army (aside from your two scouts) is anywhere near our territory. If you have any similar concerns regarding us, I imagine you would appreciate similar assurances from the eyes of your own units. We therefore propose that Grog remain where he is for the time being, and that you move Willy "9" and Tim "6-3" (using the Language of the Keys) from their positions as of when we took our turn. Slash can fall back to a less potentially threatening position. That would give each of us early warning should the other attempt a betrayal. (In the words of certain wise men, "Trust, but verify.") We further assure you that this arrangement puts Tim at least as close to our capital as Grog will be to yours, so the warning times on each side will be comparable. The lookouts on both sides would, of course, fall back as the two nations expand.

I know that this does not give you all of the assurances that you might have wanted, but I hope you can recognize that the the tensions caused by your recent actions will require some time to heal. We honestly feel that this trade proposal is in the interest of both our nations, and we hope you can recognize that mutual interest also.

We need to know whether these assurances are sufficient for you to accept our proposal, and we need to know quickly. Otherwise, the opportunity will be lost.

Sincerely,

The People of Gathering Storm
Nathan Barclay, Chief Economist

P.S. You raised some other issues in your previous post, but I fear that I have no time to address them at present. I will do so soon, however.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Building cities near someone else's core sounds like a better way to slow us down than to slow them down. Looking like a threat would very likely hurt our trade partnership, and hence our standing relative to teams other than Vox, and would (at least this early) either slow us down too or leave us vulnerable.

Hey, you asked if there was any way to non-obviously hamper another team's growth. To me, these as the two best options. This should tell you that there are no "good" ways of doing this; even the average player will know when they're not expanding fast enough, and probably why too.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

Hey, you asked if there was any way to non-obviously hamper another team's growth. To me, these as the two best options. This should tell you that there are no "good" ways of doing this; even the average player will know when they're not expanding fast enough, and probably why too.

That's basically my thinking too. Shiber suggested that we try to hinder Vox's growth in a way that wouldn't be too obvious, but however interesting the concept may be in theory, I'm skeptical as to whether there's any way to pull it off in practice.

[Shiber]

Very good response nbarclay, particularly the part about how in light of their previous actions, they must provide us with positive experience before we can really trust them.

[DeepO]

I like it, with maybe one concern. It is in essence threatening, or at least it acknowledges a lot of tension on our part when it comes to Vox. Maybe a few changes in word choice would give them more an idea of: we really want to trade and stay non-aggressive for a while, but we sure can defend ourselves if we need to.

The reply of Vox was talking about exploration issues, and did give a bit of information on their lands, asking that we did the same. Nothing was mentioned of this, so maybe add a paragraph explaining the water situation. That should certainly be enough geographical information for now.

DeepO

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DeepO
I like it, with maybe one concern. It is in essence threatening, or at least it acknowledges a lot of tension on our part when it comes to Vox. Maybe a few changes in word choice would give them more an idea of: we really want to trade and stay non-aggressive for a while, but we sure can defend ourselves if we need to.

The reply of Vox was talking about exploration issues, and did give a bit of information on their lands, asking that we did the same. Nothing was mentioned of this, so maybe add a paragraph explaining the water situation. That should certainly be enough geographical information for now.

I edited the message to tone down the second paragraph (the first with real "meat" in it) just a little and add a P.S. about addressing the other issues they raised later. I also added a parenthetical paragraph offering the option of a promise of peace for a particular number of turns if that would make them more comfortable.

[DeepO]

okay, sounds better, Nathan.

Would minimap trading ease tensions? we know where they are, they know more or less where we are, so why not make it definate and show them our position? I would even go so far as to make it a unilateral deal: they told us their position, they can have our 4000 BC. (note: the 4000 BC map is not exactly the place of EotS, but 1 tile closer to them). If they feel inclined to share their map with us, good. But we don't need it, we know their capital to 3 tiles accuracy.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Hmmm... what I really wanted to say is that even if I agree on how you put it, if I was Vox I would think that you don't want to address these issues (Re: geo-info), and are stalling. It would be a show of good will if we did it now, and not in a next message.

Of course, if you draft that next message, and send it immediately after your first, we split the issues of exploration and tech trading (which I would love to do), and can continue on both paths independently. Maybe that is even best: draft 2 messages at once, and don't delay the geo-info.

DeepO

[Shiber]

DeepO, regarding minimap trading: I have a bolder idea - let's trade current geographical minimaps (minimaps with only the geographical information on them) of our home territory. We can do this in addition to proposing that we build an irrigation aqueduct all the way up to the northern boundary of the jungle belt.

[nbarclay]

An irrigation project over that kind of distance, with a need to clear three jungles along the way, is much too big an investment for this early in the game. And I really don't have time for anything more complicated than just trying to get this trade deal closed out right now. Sorry, guys, but that's the way it is.

Nathan